For
the House to give penal powers to committees would be an extension of the
privileges of the House requiring legislation. See United Kingdom, House of
Commons, Select Committee on Procedure, 1977-78, First Report, Vol. I, Appendix
C, “Powers of Select Committees to Send for Persons, Papers and Records
(PPR)”, Memorandum by the Clerk of the House, p. 26, para.
55.

In
the 1987 case involving John Parry (Kenora–Rainy River), the Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met in camera to
deal with the matter as noted in its Third Report to the House. See Standing
Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Third Report,
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1987, Issue No. 25, p. 3.
See also Journals, April 28, 1987, p. 791.

The
Third Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, concerning the disclosure of in camera proceedings of the
Committee, presented to the House on April 28, 1987, serves as an excellent
model of such a report. Having described the events, the Report concluded:
“Your Committee feels it is their duty to place these matters before you
at this time since privilege may be involved and to give the House an
opportunity to reflect on these matters.” See Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Third Report, Minutes of
Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1987, Issue No. 25, p. 3. See also
Journals, April 28, p.
791.

Standing
Order 48(2). On April 28, 1987, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development presented its Third Report, relating to the disclosure of
in camera proceedings, to the House during Routine Proceedings. The
question of privilege based on that report was raised the same day immediately
after Question Period. See Debates, April 28, 1987, pp. 5299,
5329.

An
example of such a situation occurred on April 30, 1964. In a Committee of the
Whole, Lawrence Kindt (Macleod) rose on a question of privilege which, he
stated, affected every Member of the House. The question of privilege concerned
remarks made by the Minister of Transport (Walter Pickersgill) outside the House
which the Member claimed should have been made in the House. The Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole pointed out that the Member could only raise such a
question of privilege when the Speaker was in the Chair. Another Member, Erik
Nielsen (Yukon), then moved that the Committee rise and report progress and seek
leave to sit again in order that Mr. Kindt might raise his question of
privilege. The Committee adopted the motion, the Chairman rose, reported
progress, and Mr. Kindt presented his question of privilege. The Deputy Speaker
ruled that the matter was not a prima facie question of privilege and the
House then went back into a Committee of the Whole. See Debates, April
30, 1964, pp. 2782-3.

A
question of privilege was raised in a Committee of the Whole in 1987 by John
Nunziata (York South–Weston) who rose to complain that a Member had
assaulted him because he was not in his own seat. He requested an apology, but
the Member refused. Although the Chairman advised that he would report on the
matter to the full House, only the bill under consideration in the Committee was
reported later that day (Journals, October 15, 1987, pp. 1688-9). The
following day, Mr. Nunziata raised his question of privilege in the House. The
Member about whom Mr. Nunziata had complained rose in the House and apologized
to Mr. Nunziata and to the House, and the Speaker declared the matter closed
(Debates, October 15, 1987, p. 10064; October 16, 1987, pp.
10089-90).

Although
from a Standing Committee, the Third Report of the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on April 28,
1987, can serve as a model for a report on a privilege matter. Having described
the events, the Report concluded: “Your Committee feels it is their duty
to place these matters before you at this time since privilege may be involved
and to give the House the opportunity to reflect on these matters”
(Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Third
Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1987, Issue No.
25, p. 3). See also Journals, April 28, 1987, p.
791.

See
Debates, June 12, 1980, pp. 2030-1; December 20, 1983, pp. 364-9. In the
1983 instance, a Member argued that because the Committee had risen and reported
progress, the House was apprised of the circumstances surrounding the question
of privilege. The Speaker ruled that the Committee had only risen, reported
progress and asked for leave to sit again. The Committee had not reported the
bill nor any concerns to the
House.

See,
for example, Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Twenty-Second
Report, Minutes of Proceedings, June 18, 1996, Issue No. 1, pp. 46-55;
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Twenty-Ninth Report,
presented to the House on April 27, 1998, Journals, p.
706.

See,
for example, Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Twenty-Fourth
Report, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 7, 1991, Issue No. 39,
pp. 3-8. In the case involving John Parry (Kenora–Rainy River), following
the presentation of the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Elections,
Privileges and Procedure on December 18, 1987, which criticized the Member but
called for no punishment, Mr. Parry rose in the House and apologized for his
actions (see Debates, December 18, 1987, p.
11951).